Outpatient departments in three hospitals, including a memory clinic. 4 key findings →
Participants: 139 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Quality of life (QoL) is becoming an increasingly used outcome measure in both clinical practice and research but little is known about QoL in dementia and how it may change over time. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cross sectional analysis comparing prospectively collected research data with MDS data reported from nursing homes on identical subjects. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 140 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The independent and combined effects of physical and cognitive domains of frailty in predicting the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia are not firmly established. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers play a major role in the care of patients with dementia and are themselves at higher risk of disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 548 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A rapid increase in the number of patients with dementia has emerged as a global health challenge. 4 key findings →
Participants: 80 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physical performance tests are important for assessing the effect of physical activity interventions in older people with dementia, but their psychometric properties have not been systematically established within this specific population. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
53/100
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The BHA had excellent combined sensitivity and specificity to detect dementia and MCI, including MCI due to diverse etiologies. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 347 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this survey study, all types of objectively measured VI were associated with a higher dementia prevalence. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,817 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SLS is a valid and reliable self-administered memory test that shows promise for remote assessment of aging and neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
Participants: 96 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We will test if CCT, versus CPT, leads to improved cognitive functioning, transfers to functional ability and tasks of everyday life and impacts hippocampal volume changes and changes in the default mode network of the brain measured by resting-state functional MRI. 4 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older adults, the CBB is effective for discriminating cognitive impairment due to MCI or AD-dementia from unimpaired cognition with the LWM composite providing the strongest sensitivity. 1 key finding →
Participants: 184 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age of the study population was 78 ± 6.6 years and 123 (76.9%) were women. 4 key findings →
Participants: 160 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria. 1 key finding →
Participants: 13 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia caregivers with Internet and smartphone access demonstrate high levels of caregiver burden, depression, and anxiety, and are well-suited to receive caregiver support services delivered via mobile devices that target these issues. 2 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/100
AD and non-AD participants were older (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 72.61 ± 6.79 vs 69.91 ± 4.86 years old, p = 0.011) and had a lower MMSE score (Mean difference estimate ± standard error: 1.74 ± 0.14, p < 0.001) than Controls; post-COVID-19 patients were younger than Controls (mean ± SD: 45.07 ± 11.36 years old, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Screening in primary care using the DCR is feasible, and shows criterion and convergent validity with a "gold standard" screening tool for detecting cognitive impairment-the MOCA. 2 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We primarily reported results from a 2-state HMM but also verified results in HMMs with more hidden states and trained on the whole participant dataset. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Annual cognitive screening in older adults is essential for early detection of cognitive impairment, yet primary care settings face time constraints that present barriers to routine screening. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results suggest that the dual task ball balancing test could be used as a digital cognitive assessment of cognitive reserve. 5 key findings →
Participants: 210 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We employed a hospital-based Internet of Things (IoT) platform to validate the role of real-time activities of daily living (ADL) measurement as a digital biomarker for cognitive impairment in a hospital setting. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The final multivariable model showed good accuracy in identifying cognitively impaired individuals (c = 0·77). 4 key findings →
Participants: 912 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Where “Free full text” comes from
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 30,980 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events